Evidences of influence of tectonics on hydrogeological conditions in the light of results of reflection method

Geological Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. I, 1996, p. 141-154

Tadeusz KR YNICKI, Jakub GALaMBA

Evidences of influence of tectonics on hydrogeological conditions in the light of results of reflection method

Variations of Wllve image: on seismic profiles are frequently observed nl in[c~clions of seismic profiles with boundllries of hydrogeological units oreven of surface wnlcrsheds. Character of these variations indicates that too occum:nce ofteClonic disturbance zones or wnes of rock looseness is the reason why the said varinlion.s appenr.

Oetc:nninnlion of tile role oftcctonic disturbance lOne in formation ofhydmgcological conditions depends on the quality nod quantity of data llCQuired. Re.~ults of reflection method constitute imporlnot sources ofinformntion on tectonics; however, tlleirnpplicnbility to hydrogeological studies hal; not yet becn assessed in full. Therefore, this paper will be focussed on justification of purposes of application of reflection mcthod to some hydrogcologicnJ problems; this attempt will be based on exemplary 'reflcction survey fl.'Sulls contained in tile report by J. Brauer, W. Kulig (1991).

BOUNDARIES OF HYDROGEOLOGICAL UNITS AND THEIR RELA TlONSIDP WITH TECTONlCS

Hydrogeological units and their boundaries as plotted on the hydrogeological map of Poland on the scale 1:200 000 (C. Kolago, 1981) are shown in Figure 1. To define eventual agreement of the course of their boundaries with the ex.tent of the tectonic disturbance zones it is necessary to assume that these boundaries have been plotted on the basis of adequate dala which allows to locate them accurately; any shifting of boundaries for even several hundred metres is groundless. Criteria that have been applied to detennine boundaries of hydrogeological units on the said map are not subjected to any analysis in this paper;

however, a conclusion can be drawn that tectonic factor has not been considered. This conclusion is supported by the fact that any information on fault zones and their overburden is missing on both the maps and the hydrogeological cross·sections drawn on the respective

J

•

• •

~ .

~ 2

,

4 _ .. _ .. 5

. ^,

•••

•

• _• "'

• •

,

~ / -

....

\

, - -

....

I

\ \c

,

,

"

"

I ^N

I

\

I I I

,

I

Evidences orinOucnce ohectonics on hydl'O&eological ... 143

map sheets. Although some information was given on the map on hydraulic contacts between Cretaceous and Cenozoic aquifer, nodetails of these contacts have been explained.

It is likely that numerous zones of tectonic disturbances occurring here

0 .

Brauer,W. Kulig, 1991; T. Krynicki, 19950) act in favour of the appearance of such contacts. On the other hand, the tectonic disturbance zones, if of sealing character, may separate areas of different hydrogeological conditions. Therefore, it is essential to dctermine eventual relationship between tectonics and boundaries of hydrogeological units or even areas of different groundwatcr potentials (which are expressed by potential yields of water wells).

If faults can affect hydrogeological conditions or to some extent exert an influence on them, then it should be best observable on the boundaries separating the hydrogeological units.

The boundaries of hydrogeological units as given on the hydrogeological map, are designated with A and B characters (Fig. I). The boundaries, and particularly those designated A, cuts seismic profiles - which makes it possible to analyse the wave image at places of intersections. A serious difficulties appear from the fact that information is missing on the criteria and accuracy of boundaries of hydrogeological units plotted on the map; it should beconsidered here that sometimes shifting of boundaries for several hundred metres may locate them within the zone of tectonic disturbances or beyond such zone. A case of seismic profile 1-4-89 is offered here as the example in which the boundary A should (according to the hydrogeological map) appear at a stalion pole 90. However, it is difficult to delimit a tectonic zone here; instead, a sma1l elevation of seismic boundary K, with an amplitude of 10 ms (Fig. 2) appears on the profile. Relatively nearby, e,i, at the station poles 79 and 96, zones with no correlation (marked with N) are observed; they can be considered the tectonic disturbance zones. Thus, translocation of the boundary A by 600-11 00 m could locate it within one of the delimited tectonic zones (Fig. 2).

Profile 2-4·89 (Fig. 3) is interesting because the boundary A and the surface watershed I are running near itsstalion pole 148 in addition to the boundary B of other hydrogeological units also running very close. Therefore, it can be expected that a distinct change in record appears on seismic profile; in fact, it is proven in full in Figure3. Weak results were recorded between the station poles 145 and 160 on presented segment of profile 2-4-89; it should be noted that a fault in the Cambrian formations was delimited at the station pole 1460. Brauer, W. Kulig, 1991). There is a sound basis allowing to extend this fault up to the Cretaceou~.·

Despite a broad zone where renected waves have been weakened (which can be identified with the zone of tectonic disturbances), the fauit delimited here has nOt a large throw of its southwestern side. The existence in this area of faults with small amplitudes in the

Fig. I. Situation sketch of seismie profiles againsr the background of hydrogeological lin its

1 - seismic profiles; 2 - boundaries of regional hyclrogeologicalliniu (A, B); 3 - boundaries of IfOIJndW1lter regions <c, D. Eo F); 4 - boundaries of:ueas with different potential yields of representlllive WIller weUs (0); 5 - llurrace watcnheds (I.

m;

6- area with velocity of wave propagation in the r.LI1t:e of t700-lno m/s beneath

the aemtion WIle; 7 - boreholes .

Szkie sytuacyjny prolm sejsmie1.nyeh na tie gmniejcdnoslek hydrogcologicznyeh

I - profile sejsmiczllC:; 2 - grnnice regionlllnych jednostek hydrogcologiCUlyeh (A, 8); 3 - gmnicc rejonOw hydrogeotogicznych (C. D, E, 1"); 4 - gJ'allice obnarow 0 rowej potellcjalnej wydftjnolci typowego otwOnl 51tldziennego {OJ; 5 - wodod7jaly powicrzchniowe (l II); 6 -obsuro predkoki ro2:chodzcnia sic; fal 1700-1720 mls ponitej s!Jefy aeracji; 7 - otwory wicrtnictc

144 Tadeusz Klynicki, Jalrub Galemba

Fig. 2. Pragmcnt of profile 1-4-89. at intersection with the boundary A ofhydrogcological units

Solid lines - faults: dashed lines - wnes of discontinuities in wave correlation due to tectonic disturbances: K - reflection boundary connected with the lowest sedien ofthc Cretaceous scqllCnce; N - Z(IIlCS of discontinuities in wave coml:ll:ion

Fragment profilu 1-4-89 z micjsccm przeci,.cia z granic:j regionalnychjcdnostck hydrogcologicznych A Lillie ci~gle - uskoki; lillie przerywane - strefy nicciqglofti kore.lacji fal spowooownne zaburzeniami tclaD- nic-LIlyml: K- gruniCD reflcksyjna zwiij.llU1D.z utworarni prz)'sp~gowymi kred)'; N - strefy nieciqglo§ci korelacji

r,1

Cretaceous formations. even those of regional importance, has been suggested before (T.

Krynicki.1995a).

The boundary A situated within clearly visible zones of tectonic disturbances is also seen on other profiles such as: 7-48-89, 12-4-89,45-4-89, for example. Figure 4 presents a fragment of profile 7-4-89, on which the boundary A should be delimited at the station pole 63. A fault delimited here cannot be questionable.

On profile 45-4-89 (Fig. 5), the boundary A under discussion is running through the station pole 53. A distinct variation in the wave record is observed in this part of profile; it can be connected with the existence of tectonic disturbance zone.

However, variations of seismic record in places where the boundary A occurs can also be less important. For example, based on datil on the hydrogeological map, the boundary A on profile 4-4-89 should be delimited in the vicinity of the station pole 177 (Fig. 6). A visible change in dip orientation of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic strata is observed here; to some extent, the place can be considered to be a zone of rock looseness. More distinct changes of wave image appear on the profile segments contained between station poles

Evidences of innllencc of leClonk$ on hydroseologienl ..• '45

r

^A

I

"'ig. J. Variation in seismie record on profile 2-4-89 in Ihe placcwhc:.n: thcboundary A ofrt:gionaJ hydrogeological units nod the boundary I of surface wDtershed arc running

Forexplanations see Fig. 2

Zmi:ma Upisu sejsmiCVlCgo no profilu 2-4-89 w miejseu przcbicgu g.ranicy rcgionaln}'1:hjednostek hydrogeolo- glCVlych A i wododzialu powicr.tehniowcgo I

Objll$:nicniajak Da fig. 2

196-230 and 130-165. Results acquired on the latter will bediscusses in the following part of this paper dealing with watershed boundaries.

Thus, with respect to what was presented so far, the boundary A of regional hydrogeo- logical units is running through those profile segment for which a variable wave images were recorded; in most cases the said variations refleel zones of tectonic disturbances or zones of looseness of rocks. Dissimilarity of wave images on particular profiles can be explained by the fact that the boundary A is running through zones of different faults. Too scarce grid of seismic profiles along with complicated tectonics makes it difficult to explain reasons for varied wave image at the occurrences of the boundary A, the more so as the accuracy of delimitation of this boundary on the hydrogeological map remains unknown.

Contrary to the boundary A, the boundary B crosses only two seismic profiles: 2-4-89 and 52-4-89190 (Fig. 1). Along its considerable length, this boundary'sdirection isSW-NE.

Faults delimited in this part of the area (J. Brauer, W. Kulig, 1991) are of similar orientation

as the boundary B. In addition, distribution of particular wave velocity zones in deposits beneath unsaturated formations (T. Krynicki, I 995b) also corresponds with orientation of the boundary B.

146 TadeuS'l. Krynicki, Jakub Galcmba

A

Fig. 4

Fig. 4. Variation in seismic I'CC(Ird on profile 7-4-89 in the place where the boundary A of regional hydrogeological units is running

For explanations see Fig. 2

Zmiana z.apisu sejsmicUlego na profilu 74-89 w micjscu pnebiegu granicy regionalnych jcdnos!Ck hydrogeoJo- gicwychA

Objunieniajak no fig. 2

Fig. 5. The boundary A of regional hydrog«llogical units and the boundary D of groundwater regions in the zone of distinct variation in seismic record on profile 45-4-89

For explanations see Fig. 2

Grallica regionaJny<:h jednostek hydrogeologicxnych A i granica rcjon6w hydrogeologicznych D w strefie wy- rainych lmian zapisu sejsmiczncgo na promu 45-4-89

Obj~nieniajak nn fig. 2

A configuration afwater table contours in the vicinity of profile 2-8-89 also resulls from tectonic reasons (T. Krynicki, 1995b).

In most cases, boundaries ofhydrogeologicaI regions delimited on the map (Fig. I) are in agreement with changes in the wave images. Th~ exemplary case deals with a boundary D which crosses three profiles: 12-4-89.52-4-89190, and 45-4-89. On profile 12-4-89, the boundary D runs through the station pole 22 (Fig. 7). No fault has been delimited here in the report of seismic survey (1. Brauer, W. Kulig, 1991); nevertheless, a gap observed in wave correlation can be interpreted as the tectonic disturbances. Then, the boundary D on profile·52-4-89/90 is situated within the zone of Hanna Fault, the importance of which upon fonnation of hydrogeological conditions was emphasized earlier (T. Krynicki. 1995b). On profi!e45-4-89, both boundaries A and B are localized close to each other within the same tectonically disturbed zone (Fig. 5).

Evidences or inOucnce orlectOllics on hydrogeolosical ... 147

Fig. 6. The boundary A of regional hydrol;eological units. separnting profile 4-4-89 into segments with different dips or straIn

For c~plDnlltions sec Fig. 2

Omnica ~gionaln)'th jedno$lek hydrogcologiCVIyeh A rozdzielaj~ prom 4-4-89 na oddnki 0 odmicnnych upadach W:If"Stw

Obj3fnicniajalt nil lig. 2

The fact that the boundary D runs through zones of different faults is the cxplanation of different wave images recorded on particular profiles in places where this boundary appears. A fault of NW-SE orientation is that one which appears at the intersection of the boundary 0 with profile 12·4-89. The Hanna Fault is the next one that occurs at the intersection of this boundary with profile 52-4-89190 and further northwestwardly from the boundary of watershed I up to profile 45-4-89. The third fault is clearly visible on profile 45-4·89. in the wne where the boundary A of the hydrogeological units is also silUated (Fig. 5).

The boundary 0 in the vicinity of profile 45-4-89 is also a boundary of areas differen- tiated on the hydrogeological map. each having different potential yields of representative water wells. This leads to the conclusion thm some faults can constitute a boundary between areas of different hydrogeological conditions or that boundaries of such areas are consistent with zone.<;: of tectonic disturbances.

Other intersections of boundaries of areas with different groundwater potential with profile 12-4-89 occur in the vicinities oflhe staUon poles 150 and 205. The lattcr is presented in Figure 8. Delimited zones of tectonic disturbances should be connected with boundaries of areas of different water well yields despite the fact that omission of some shot points on

148 TadcuS7. Krynic:ki, Jakub Galemba

Fig. 7. Frngment of profile 12+89 showing ooismic record 31 the intersection ohhis profile with the boundary D of groundwatu regions .

For c~pl3nalions sec· Fig. 2

Fragment profilu 12-4-89 obrazuj~cy upis sejsmiczny na prn:ci~iu z gmniCOl rejon6w hydrogeologicznych 0 Objdnieniajak oa fig. 2

the segment of profile between the station poles 202-205 could contribute to the decrease of record dynamics. Similar correlation of changes in wave image with places where boundaries are being delimited for areas with different potential water well yields is also observed in cases of other profiles, e.g. 5-4-89 and 6+89.

From what is stated above a conclusion can be drawn that the boundaries of hydrogeo- logical regions and sub-regions or even areas of different groundwater potential as plotted on the hydrogeological map occur within zones of variable wave images on seismic profiles;

it is funher concluded that these variations are most often caused by the presence of faults.

SURFACE WATERSHEDS AND WAVE IMAGE

In the hydrographic alias ofPo[and on the scale 1:200 000 (H. Czarnecka, 1980). two boundaries of surface watersheds (I and IT) were distinguished. The watershed I is wonhy of considering due to its course and numerous intersections with seismic profiles.

Evidences or influence or leetonia on hydrogeologicnl .. ,

Fig. 8. VlIrilllion in seismic tt:COI'd on profile 12-4-89 at the hountbry with different poIenlinl yields (0) Forexplanalions sec Fig. 2

Zmi:llla zapisu sejsmieznego n:l prorilu 12489 na gmnicy obszar6w 0 nUnej wodonofnoki (0)

Obj~nieni:l jllk nn fig. 2

149

Based on general orientation and the couse of the watershed I, three regions can be distinguished:

- western - extending up to profile 34-89, with dominant W-E orientation;

- central, between profiles 4-4-89 and 7-4-89; a variable direction of its course is its characteristic feature;

- eastern - extending eastwards of profile 7-4-89; the NE-SE orientation is dominant here except a small fragment near profile 52-4-89/90 where the course of the watershed I is close to that of the regional Hanna Fault.

A number of faults distinguished on the basis of directions of boundaries of wave velocities in fonnations beneath the aeration zone is similar to that when a depth 10 water table was used 10 delimit the faults (T. Krynicki, 1995b); however, it should be noted here that full accordance of the regions distinguished by both methods have not been reached.

[( is characleristic thai the course of the zone of wave velocity of 1700-1720 mls is, in general, close to the course of the watershed I (Fig. 1). Omitting a question of criteria applied to differentiation of the surface watersheds as it was omitted in the case of boundaries

".

^{Tadcus:r. Krynicl:i, 1akub Galemba}

I

190

2(xA

210 220

Fig. 9. Fngment ofprofilc 4-4-89 along which the surface w31ershed I is running For explanations sec Fig. 2

Frtgmcnt profilu 4-4-89, Wldlut ktcSrtgo ~biega wodod:ciaJ powienchniowy I

Obj~nkniajak 113 fig. 2

I

₂₃₀

between the hydrogeological units, an important task still remains open aimed at defining eventual correlation of variation in wave image in places where the watershed I intersects seismic profiles.

In the northwestern part of profile 52·4-89190, the watershed [is situated at the slation pole 50. A fault being a vertical plane disturbing the Carboniferous fonnations was delimited in this place

0,

Brauer. W. Kulig, 199t); on the other hand. more shruJow boundaries, including those in the Zechstein, are continuous, in principle. However, other slope of the fault mentioned here so as if its plane dips towards NW. creates a contribution justifying the extension of zone of looseness in the rock medium into the Cretaceous beds.

When considering profile 1-4-89, the watershed runs through the station pole 50. The wave image acquired at this point justifies the plot of the tectonica1ly disturbed zone within the entire depth intervals shown in Figure 7 (T. Krynicki, 1995a).

Both the watershed I and the boundary A of regional hydrogeological units cross profile 2-4-89 almost in the same place (Fig. 1), and results acquired are presented in Figure 3.

Variation in seismic record is expressed in ¹¹ clearly visible way; it may results from tectonic disturbances.

Evidences ofinnl.lCnce oflel;tonics on lIydl'Olcoloaical ... lSI

Fig. 10. The surface watershed I ~ppearing in tlull place on profile 5+89 where fuults I13.ve been dclmmed in the Palaeozoic formations;md where the Mcscn.oic formruions become sliglltly less sllallow

r-or e"'planatiops see Fig. 2

WodoIWnl powiem:llniowy I, w~pujQCY n:l profilu 54·89 w miejscu w)'ZI\XUnja 'uskok6w w utworncll palc:ozoicznych i z:LUla(::t:Ij:tcego s~ nieznru:l.negO splycenia utworVw Il"ItWzoicznych

Obj~nicni:ljalr; n:l lig. 2

On profile 3-4-89, the watershed I did not reflcct itself in a more distinct way in the record of reflection boundaries in a complex of foonations belonging to the Carboniferous.

Jurassic. and the lower section of Cretaceous. On the other hand. record of both deeper and shallower fonnations Ihan those mentioned here contains some elements of variations in the wave image. namely adecreaseof dynamics of boundaries and correlative discontinuity.

Interesting is a 3 km long segment of profile 4-4-89 contained betwccn the station poles 195 and 228, along. which the watershed I is running. A distinct variation in record is observed here (Fig. 9). A fault disturbing the Palaeozoic foonations is strongly evidenced in the vicinity of the station pole 220 (1. Brauer. W. Kulig, 1991), bUi it is likely thatthe fault continues in the Mesozoic. Of striking character is a width of zone of decreased velocity between the station poles 200 and 225. In principle. it is accepted and approvcd in practice that a width of fault zone is dependent on the throw amplitude. but the amplitude of the fault under discussion is not large. Therefore. it should be accepted that the width of this zone is connected here with the direction of the fault course which is almost parallel to

152

T I

Tadcusz Krynicki.lakub Galcmba

rig. II. Variations in seismic ~ on profile 6·4-89, indicating the occurrence ofuxmnicaJly disturbed zones inlhe vicinity of intersection with the boundary A and with Inc watershed I

For explanations see Fig 2

Zmiany zapisu sejsmiczncgo n ... profilu 6-4-89, wskazujacc l1a wyslepowanie stre! zaburzonych ~klOniC7.llie w s:tSicdztwie·pncciccia 1. granic~A i wododzialem 1

Obja§nieniajnk na fig. 2

this profile; with respect to what is discussed here the watershed I can beconsidcred running within the fault zone. The decrease of wave dynamics on the discussed segment of profile 4-4-89 seems to be connected with the occurrence of the zone of wave velocity in the range of 1700-1720 mls. Similar width of the zone also appears on profile 5-4-89; however, a distinct change in the wave image is recorded here. This fact indicates that a tectonic factor affecls the result acquired. Circumstances for delimiting the tectonically disturbed zone appear in the place where the watershed I intersecls profile 44-89 on the south-west from the boundary A of hydrogeological unils (Fig. I); such a situation exists despite the fact that the wave image is less changed here than on the segment of profile 4-4-90 discussed above.

According to the map, the watershed I on profile 5-4-89 should besituated in the vicinity of the station pole 157 (Fig. 10). A fault zone was delimited here, which disturbes the lower Palaeozoic fonnations (J. Brauer, W. Kulig, 1991); a width of the zone is defined by two faulls. Extension of both faulls upward situates them in the vicinity of the station pole 157.

However,just simple extension is insufficiently justified, since waves occurring in the time interval of 0.3-0.4 s keep correlative continuity. A small change appears in the dip of strata in the vicinity of the station pole 160. The wave image acquired in the area of station poles 146-148 is characterized by the decrease of amplitudes and a gap in wave correlation; both usually appear in fault zones although the omission of several shot points would also affect

Evidences of innuence of tectonics on hydrogeoJOIieaJ...

1"

the dynamics of the record. Missing correlation of changes in the wave image with profile 5-4-89 (Fig. 10) can be explained by not very accurate delimitation of the watershed on the map. However, should the watershed [ be shifted around 500 m towards the slation pole 500, then it would be located within the fault zone.

To some extent, a 2 km long segment of profile 6-4·89, restricted by the station poles 100-125. remains in similar situation with respect to the watershed I as the part of profile 4-4-89 discussed so far. Intensive reflected waves have been recorded here, except a small fragment between the station poles 106 and 109. The watershed [intersects profile 6-4-89 in the vicinity of the station pole 106. i.e. in the area where a distinct variation appears in the seismic record. Th.is variation should be connected with a wne of tectonic disturbances.

Variation in the record of wave image can also be observed in places of intersecti~ns of the watershed I with following profiles: 74-89, 9-4·89, and 52-4·89190; variation of the wave image on other profile (10.4-89) is less visible.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of boundaries of both hydrogeological units and areas of similar potential yields of representative water wells - as plotted on the hydrogeological map of Poland on the scale 1:200 000 - correlate well with zones of variations in seismic wave images.

Character of variations in record of reflected waves may attest that they result from the presence of faults. The fact is that boundaries of hydrogeological units exhibit relationship with the tectonics; however, particular boundaries not necessarily run along their entire length through the same fault zones that disturb both the Palaeozoic and Cretaceous fonnations. The occurrenceoffaults in the overburden of the Cretaceous fonnation is likely, but a full analysis not limited to seismic data only is required to document this idea. It should be considered that the delimited faults exert an influence on the hydrogeological conditions.

This inclines to the acceptance that making use of results of reflection method is useful in hydrogeological studies.

When delimiting the surface watersheds, it is well motivated 10 refer to those seismic data the course of which seems to show relationship with variations of the wave image, also with the area of the occurrence of some velocities of wave propagation in the substratum of the aeration zone.

InSlytul Hydrogeologii i Geologii Intynierd:iej UniWCJ1ytetu WlIfSllIwskic:go

Waruawa. n1. Zwilki i Wigury 93 Received: OZ.I 0.1995

1"

Tadeusz Krynicki. Jakub GaJemba REFERENCES

CZARNECKA H. (ed.) (1980) _ PodziaJ hydrogmficVlY Polski, I :2(X)OOO part II. Wyd. GeoL Warsuwa.

BRAUER / .. KULIG W. (1991) - Dokumentacja badati sejsmicznych reflebyjnych na [cmacie: t.uk6w- Patczew-Chelm-Hrubiesrow, rok badal1198919O. An:h. PSG. Woouawa.

KOLAGQ C. (cd.) (1981) _ Mapa hydrogeologicma Polski 1:200 000, ark. Wlodawa i t.uk6w. Inst. Geol.

Warnw.wa,

I:<R YNICKI T. (I99Sa) - Faults in the Cretaceous and its base as displayed on seismic sections through the Lublin

area (cast Poland). (}eat. Quart.. 39, p. 313-388, no. 3.

KR YNICKI T. (199Sb) - Making usc of the low velocity zone (L VZ) in hydrogeology and engineering geology.

Geol. Quart., 39, p. 513-526, no. 4.

Tadeusz KR YNICKI, Jnkub GALEMBA

PRZE,JA WY WPLYWU TEKTONIK1 Nil. WARUNKl HYDROGEOLOGICZNE W SWIETLE WYNlK6w METODY REFLEKSYJNEJ

Slrcsze:r.enic

W artykulc przedstawiono pn:yklady tmian obraw fnlowego na wybranych plUkrojach scjsmicznych, zlokaJimwanych w cze~i podniesionej prewendyjskiej pla/fonny w$Chodnioeuropejsldej. Zmiany l:apisu fa!

odbitych, willZllnyeh"l: utworami mezozoicz.nymi, wystepujll w miej$Cat:h pneci~ia sic wic:ks~ci pn.elcrojOw z granicamijednostek hydrogeologicznych, wyznaczonych na mapie hydrogeologicznej w slalli 1:200 000, a taJ:te z wododzialnmi powiero::hniowylJli.. Chatal:ler zmian obrazu fa!owego wskazuje, te ~ one spowodowane z.abun.eniami lektonicznymi. POSlCzeg61ne granicc: joonostek nie przebiegaj~ jednak na calej swcj dlugotci w slrefach lyeh samych usk0k6w. Wyniki analizy zapisu sejsmicznego pnemawiaj" za cclowokill korzystania z danych metody refleksyjnej w kartografii hydrogeologicznej.